I find myself being troubled by certain books without having the language for what, exactly, is troubling me. I appreciate that you are able to articulate what is discomforting so clearly. A book I recently read fits the definition of “melodrama” right up until the end, then pulls back. It gave the sense that the oppressed had agency, but chose the oppression. The savior either couldn’t or didn’t offer salvation and I was left with the feeling that either the oppressed character was truly “other” (not human but otherwise seeming human) or genuinely wanted to be used by her human oppressors. I’m still troubled by it.
Anyway, thank you for giving me more ideas that help me understand the world.
Elaborate stories to explain how Others just want to serve and/or humor us because we are wonderful, not because we have crushed them and taken away their other options. Do we need a short, catchy pejorative for this societal neurosis? "Butler kink" maybe?
I read the book a couple of years ago and my takeaway is that they saved each other, neither one subordinate to the other. I liked that this story was told from the POV of the octopus and that Marcellus's human friend was there for him just like he was there for her in ways her other human friends and family could not be. Each was suffering in their own way; Marcellus suffering imprisonment and Tova suffering grief. They gave each other purpose to move forward when all seemed hopeless.
so, grief adn imprisonment are not the same thing. one is structural oppression; one is not. treating them as parallel is not unusual for this kind of liberal white melodrama, but that’s in the interest of the dynamic I’m pointing out.
Marcellus’ perspective is a much smaller part of the novel, which again I think is telling. He’s a fun magical byway in Tova’s story. which makes sense in itself because he’s a fantasy octopus! But again is unfortunately also because he’s in the narrative position that is usually reserved for marginalized people.
I mean, I am very familiar with the tropes, and I had a visceral negative reaction. I'm trying to explain why the book made me irritated and unhappy, not really delving to find things to be irritated and unhappy about.
The unfortunate irony of the oppressed and marginalized not being able to "save themselves" without the "benevolent mercy" of (at least, some of) their oppressors dispensing a few crumbs of justice, freedom, or aid in whatever form. Even when freedom is won by bloody revolution, the revolutionists then find themselves dependent on the resources of the original oppressors to create their new world, which is its own form of slavery.
I think we approached the book with different perspectives. Knowing that octupi are intelligent and have been known to get out of their containers, I took Marcellus' anthropomorphism at face value as in a children's story like Black Beauty or Beatrix Potter's many stories. As in these stories, Marcellus' anthropomorphism allowed a sympathy to be created and I simply rooted for him to finally escape by whose ever hand as he did not have the capacity to escape on his own.
By the way, have you ever or ever thought of doing a piece on Judy Holliday-blond, blue-eyed, Jew, gave Jack Lemmon his break, put touches of feminism into her films (a burly female marriage counselor at a time when they were not much in view, plucking hairs from her chin--never saw an actress do that before or since, etc.)--and entirely flummoxing the House Un-American Activities Committee. With Trump shouting communism, there may be some food for thought there.
What? What is our fundamental relationship with animals (cats excepted, I admit)? What's wrong with a story whose message in the end is to treat animals with respect and kindness? Are you going to castigate Lassie for being too servile or blame Black Beauty for not leading a revolt of cab horses?
As I say in the piece, I don't think that the message is to treat animals with respect and kindness. Marcellus isn't really an animal; he's sentient, and is treated as a subaltern or a marginalized person. The novel uses the tropes of white savior fiction, and does not treat him with respect, but with condescension.
I haven't seen Lassie, and it's been years and years since I read Black Beauty! So can't tell you what I'd say about those.
Marcellus is certainly an animal. I think you are miss using the term "sentient."
Sentience vs. Sapience: While sentient refers to the basic ability to feel, sapience implies human-like wisdom, self-awareness, and higher-order reasoning.Pop Culture vs. Science: In science-fiction (and some gaming contexts), the word sentient is often used interchangeably with sapient to describe a thinking, reasoning person or alien. In science and philosophy, however, sentience applies to most animals with complex nervous systems.
Marcellus is a person in an octopus suit! He has self awareness; he understands human language. He’s a fantasy octopus! He’s more like a vulcan than he is like an octopus.
The book is really not interested in ecology or animal welfare; there’s hardly anything about that in there. Marcellus is a person in prison, as far as the book is concerned…or more precisely, he is a subaltern in a white savior story.
I must respectfully disagree. I did not see the movie, but read the book. In the context of the narrative it would not have made a difference if the characters were not white, that would have been perfectly satisfactory with me. I presume the author is white and so wrote from what she knew. If the lead character were not white, I could, however, see you then making the analysis of Marcellus --and I do not disagree that animals caged in zoos are oppressed--and the cleaning women of color as two oppressed creatures helping each other).
whiteness is a narrative position in these cases—like, everyone is white in schindler’s list, but it’s still a white savior story, since schindler is the privileged person who saves subalterns. (you could call it a gentile savior story...)
animals in zoos can be treated better or worse…Marcellus is sentient, so he’s actually more like someone in prison.
I find myself being troubled by certain books without having the language for what, exactly, is troubling me. I appreciate that you are able to articulate what is discomforting so clearly. A book I recently read fits the definition of “melodrama” right up until the end, then pulls back. It gave the sense that the oppressed had agency, but chose the oppression. The savior either couldn’t or didn’t offer salvation and I was left with the feeling that either the oppressed character was truly “other” (not human but otherwise seeming human) or genuinely wanted to be used by her human oppressors. I’m still troubled by it.
Anyway, thank you for giving me more ideas that help me understand the world.
Elaborate stories to explain how Others just want to serve and/or humor us because we are wonderful, not because we have crushed them and taken away their other options. Do we need a short, catchy pejorative for this societal neurosis? "Butler kink" maybe?
I read the book a couple of years ago and my takeaway is that they saved each other, neither one subordinate to the other. I liked that this story was told from the POV of the octopus and that Marcellus's human friend was there for him just like he was there for her in ways her other human friends and family could not be. Each was suffering in their own way; Marcellus suffering imprisonment and Tova suffering grief. They gave each other purpose to move forward when all seemed hopeless.
so, grief adn imprisonment are not the same thing. one is structural oppression; one is not. treating them as parallel is not unusual for this kind of liberal white melodrama, but that’s in the interest of the dynamic I’m pointing out.
Marcellus’ perspective is a much smaller part of the novel, which again I think is telling. He’s a fun magical byway in Tova’s story. which makes sense in itself because he’s a fantasy octopus! But again is unfortunately also because he’s in the narrative position that is usually reserved for marginalized people.
I get what you’re saying, but I think, sometimes, we over-analyze, particularly when one of the main characters is a magic octopus. 😀
I mean, I am very familiar with the tropes, and I had a visceral negative reaction. I'm trying to explain why the book made me irritated and unhappy, not really delving to find things to be irritated and unhappy about.
The unfortunate irony of the oppressed and marginalized not being able to "save themselves" without the "benevolent mercy" of (at least, some of) their oppressors dispensing a few crumbs of justice, freedom, or aid in whatever form. Even when freedom is won by bloody revolution, the revolutionists then find themselves dependent on the resources of the original oppressors to create their new world, which is its own form of slavery.
I think we approached the book with different perspectives. Knowing that octupi are intelligent and have been known to get out of their containers, I took Marcellus' anthropomorphism at face value as in a children's story like Black Beauty or Beatrix Potter's many stories. As in these stories, Marcellus' anthropomorphism allowed a sympathy to be created and I simply rooted for him to finally escape by whose ever hand as he did not have the capacity to escape on his own.
By the way, have you ever or ever thought of doing a piece on Judy Holliday-blond, blue-eyed, Jew, gave Jack Lemmon his break, put touches of feminism into her films (a burly female marriage counselor at a time when they were not much in view, plucking hairs from her chin--never saw an actress do that before or since, etc.)--and entirely flummoxing the House Un-American Activities Committee. With Trump shouting communism, there may be some food for thought there.
I’ve never heard of her; I should check it out!
What? What is our fundamental relationship with animals (cats excepted, I admit)? What's wrong with a story whose message in the end is to treat animals with respect and kindness? Are you going to castigate Lassie for being too servile or blame Black Beauty for not leading a revolt of cab horses?
As I say in the piece, I don't think that the message is to treat animals with respect and kindness. Marcellus isn't really an animal; he's sentient, and is treated as a subaltern or a marginalized person. The novel uses the tropes of white savior fiction, and does not treat him with respect, but with condescension.
I haven't seen Lassie, and it's been years and years since I read Black Beauty! So can't tell you what I'd say about those.
Marcellus is certainly an animal. I think you are miss using the term "sentient."
Sentience vs. Sapience: While sentient refers to the basic ability to feel, sapience implies human-like wisdom, self-awareness, and higher-order reasoning.Pop Culture vs. Science: In science-fiction (and some gaming contexts), the word sentient is often used interchangeably with sapient to describe a thinking, reasoning person or alien. In science and philosophy, however, sentience applies to most animals with complex nervous systems.
Marcellus is a person in an octopus suit! He has self awareness; he understands human language. He’s a fantasy octopus! He’s more like a vulcan than he is like an octopus.
The book is really not interested in ecology or animal welfare; there’s hardly anything about that in there. Marcellus is a person in prison, as far as the book is concerned…or more precisely, he is a subaltern in a white savior story.
I must respectfully disagree. I did not see the movie, but read the book. In the context of the narrative it would not have made a difference if the characters were not white, that would have been perfectly satisfactory with me. I presume the author is white and so wrote from what she knew. If the lead character were not white, I could, however, see you then making the analysis of Marcellus --and I do not disagree that animals caged in zoos are oppressed--and the cleaning women of color as two oppressed creatures helping each other).
whiteness is a narrative position in these cases—like, everyone is white in schindler’s list, but it’s still a white savior story, since schindler is the privileged person who saves subalterns. (you could call it a gentile savior story...)
animals in zoos can be treated better or worse…Marcellus is sentient, so he’s actually more like someone in prison.